Supreme Court hits out at tainted ‘burnt piles of cash at home’ Judge Yashwant Varma over his petition, questions how he can challenge in-house inquiry conducted by the apex court

The Supreme Court on Monday, 28th July, asked some tough questions to Justice Yashwant Varma, who is challenging the findings of an in-house inquiry report that went against him. The case relates to a huge pile of cash that was found inside a storeroom at his government residence in Delhi, after a fire broke out there in March this year.

The apex court asked why Justice Varma had participated in the internal inquiry process if he didn’t believe the committee had the authority to investigate him in the first place. The bench, consisting of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih, also questioned the timing of the petition, asking why was it filed only after the inquiry report was submitted.

“Why did you appear before the committee if you thought it had no power to investigate? You are a constitutional authority; you can’t now say that you didn’t know,” Justice Datta asked.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, said that the judge’s removal must follow a proper constitutional process. He argued that the internal committee had no legal authority to recommend action and that its findings were being used to create public outrage before any official move to impeach the judge.

Sibal pointed to Article 124 of the Constitution, which lays down how judges can be removed only through a formal motion in Parliament. He said the public release of the inquiry report and videos from the fire from the Judge’s own house had damaged his client’s image unfairly.

He also claimed that the Chief Justice of India had no power to send the report directly to the President or the Prime Minister and that this went against the rules.

What did the Supreme Court say

Justice Datta responded that even impeachment is a political process. He asked why Justice Varma didn’t approach the court earlier when the committee was formed, or when the tapes were made public. “Why wait until the report was out?” he asked.

Sibal answered that they believed the committee might uncover the real truth, like who the money belonged to. But Justice Datta was not convinced. He noted that while Sibal said the money wasn’t Justice Varma’s, he hadn’t denied that the cash was found on the property. “If the cash was there, it has to be explained,” the judge said.

Sibal insisted that there was no proof of misbehaviour by the judge. “Where is the link between the cash and the judge himself?” he asked while talking about the pile of cash found at the Judge’s residence. He also argued that the internal committee’s report was just an initial opinion, not proper evidence as defined under the Judges’ Inquiry Act.

But the court pointed out that this was not just about technicalities; it was about the public trust in the judiciary.

The bench eventually decided to adjourn the hearing till Wednesday. It asked Sibal to place a copy of the internal report on record.

Justice Varma also hides his identity

Justice Varma has also concealed his identity in his petition in the Supreme Court challenging the findings of an inquiry panel that recommended his removal.

The Supreme Court cause list for Monday, 28th July,  mentions the case as “XXX vs The Union of India”. Here, XXX refers to Justice Varma, who has urged the Supreme Court to grant permission for non-disclosure of his identity in his petition.

While the usage of ‘XXX’ to hide the identity of petitioners is not uncommon, it is generally used by victims of sexual assault or rape survivors. It is also used in cases involving juveniles and minors to prevent revealing their identity.

Background of the case 

In March this year, firefighters on their way to douse a fire at Justice Varma’s home discovered piles of cash stashed in a storeroom. The findings quickly made headlines, leading to public outrage. Justice Varma was then a judge of the Delhi High Court.

Following the discovery, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna formed a three-judge internal committee to look into the matter. Justice Varma was moved back to the Allahabad High Court, and his judicial work was suspended during the inquiry.

The committee, which examined 55 witnesses, including Varma and his daughter, and reviewed photos and videos from the fire brigade, concluded that the cash was found in a part of the house under Justice Varma’s or his family’s control. Since he could not give a convincing explanation about the money, the panel said that action should be taken against him.

Justice Varma is now facing an impeachment motion in Parliament. Last week, a group of MPs from both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha submitted a notice for his removal. This comes after the in-house committee submitted its findings to the Chief Justice of India, who then forwarded it to the President and Prime Minister.

Justice Varma had earlier refused to resign when advised to do so by the CJI.

With the issue now turning into a constitutional debate over the powers of the judiciary, Parliament, and the role of the media, the Supreme Court’s final word in this case will likely set an important precedent.

News